Tuesday, August 17, 2010

façade: Jennifer Aniston

Ok, this is just between us, right?

Let's see...How shall I put this?... Oh, heck, here goes"

I ♥ Jen!

Now is the time to praise Jennifer Aniston.

Why? Well, she has a pleasing, sturdy filmography and, from where I sit, Aniston has been too-hastily (and predictably) pigeon-holed by short-sighted, lazy media writers as a former TV star rather than as a popular film star.

Fact is, she's a solid actress, a terrific comedienne, a most pleasing screen presence and, by all accounts, one of the most generous people working in films today.Anyone needing proof should contemplate a home-theater Jennifer Aniston Fil Festival - and I heartifly suggest that you seriously think about it. Here's a list of double-bills that I'd definitely pencil in.

"The Break-Up" / "Friends with Money"

Two of Aniston's more recent films, both from a single year, 2006 - an impressive achievement. The former is Peyton Reed's scathingly authentic look at the baggage that couples thoughtlessly bring into relationships, eventually paying the price.

It's an uncompromising, often harsh but very accurate examination of a relationship unraveling. In this comedy, the "jokes" hurt. They're unusually brutal. It's impressive that the astute script was written by two men, Jay Lavender and Jeremy Garelick, because they've created an amazingly empatheic role for Aniston who tears into it as if it were a raw slab of meat. Her performance here is auspicious, as she registers disappointment and frustration in counterpoint to co-star Vince Vaughn's glib, unfeeling self-entitlement. The guy definitely comes off worse here. The actual scene in which the pair breaks up - and extended argument played out in real time - is arguably some of the best screen writing in years. That scene alone, which runs about ten minutes, can stand on its own as a complete, self-contained movie.Nicole Holofcener directed the second - a slender, shrewd inside-out take on Aniston's "Friends," where matters are less than egalitarian. Aniston bravely took on the role of the loser of the group - which includes Frances McDormand, Catherine Keener and Joan Cusack - and ran with it.

"Love Happens / "Management"

For reasons of commerce exclusively, Brandon Camp's debut film, Love Happens," was sold as a Jennifer Aniston romcom. Far from it. It's an Aaron Eckhart dramedy. Aniston hands the material - about a self-help guru, newly widowed, who has to learn to help himself - over to Eckhart; she is essentially playing a part that's in support to his star turn here. It's a serious film. There's nothing romantic or comedic about it. And it works because Eckhart is so commanding as a deeply flawed man. His scenes with Martin Sheen, playing his character's grieving father-in-law, incited my imagination. I could just see these two as father and son in a remake of "I Never Sang for My Father," played 40 years ago by Melvyn Douglas and Gene Hackman for Gilbert Cates. And Aniston would be great in the sister role originally played by Estelle Parsons. (I can dream, can't I?)

Playwright Stephen Belber (he of the Manhattan Theater Club and the Playwrights Horizons) wrote and directed "Management," a quirky, shaggy dog love story between a desperate man-child (Steve Zahn) and a jaded traveling saleswoman (Aniston) who supplies the tacky art that routinely litters cheap motel rooms but whose avocation is more green and more enlightened. She's obsessed with the environment. The film is wistful, intelligent and very small, and Belber handed Aniston a wonderful role - possibly the most fascinating woman's movie part in ages, bar none. But she stepped back and let the incorrigible Zahn, at long last, have his moment in the spotlight in "Management." Definitely worth a second look, now that the tabloid dust that usually surrounds Aniston has settled.

"Rock Star" / "Office Space"

Two of Aniston's more eclectic titles - Stephen
Herek's 2001 indictment of just how unhealthy and destructive show business can
be to a person's psyche, and Mike Judge's gloriously anarchic and savage
bludgeoning of the modern workplace. Released in 1999, it's a film full of guys
- but Aniston shines as Joanna, an artless young woman who just doesn't wear
enough of the required "flair" in her demoralizing waitress job.

"The Good Girl / "The Object of My Affection"

These two contain Aniston's strongest screen
performances - as the blue-collar Justine in "The Good Girl," Miguel
Arteta's astute 2002 art-house hit about a young woman who is trapped, stuck,
immobolized (take your pick) and 1998's "The Object of My Affection,"
directed by Nicholas Hytner from a screenplay by Wendy Wasserstein, in which
the actress plays Nina, a confused young woman who falls in love with a gay man
(Paul Rudd).

"Derailed" / "Rumor Has It"

Aniston starred in these two diametrically opposed
films in 2005 - the first, a nasty bit of business by Mikael Håfström, with
Clive Owen and Vincent Cassel, and the second a potentially promising
reimagining of the story behind "The Graduate," which suffered an
irrevocable loss when its first director (and creator), Ted Griffin, was
dismissed after 10 days into principal photography and replaced by Rob Reiner.
It never got its footing - and, sadly, remains a missed opportunity.

"She's the One" / "Dream for an Insomniac"

Two from 1996 - Ed Burn's sophomore feature, an
easy-going ensemble piece that also features Cameron Diaz, and Tiffanie
DeBartolo's little-seen off-beat romcom with Ione Skye and Jennifer as BFFs.
Worth checking out.

"He's Just Not That into You" / "Marley & Me"

Earlier, I commented that Aniston may be the most
generous screen performer today. She was a team player in the hugely
entertaining ensemble film, "He's Just Not That Into You," and she
indulged a dog (actually many of them) and the dog-eyed Owen Wilson in
"Marley & Me." (And let's not forget those films she made
with Eckhart and Zahn.)”Marley
& Me," of course, is a family-friendly mainstream film
adapted from the John Grogan best-seller. It's a movie that was ready-made for
the cineplex at your local mall but there's more than what meets the eye here.
Director David Frankel, ably abetted by his game stars Owen Wilson and Aniston,
apparently was not interested in doodling some mindless romp here, but was
driven by something more serious, commenting in subtle ways on the profound
relationship that a person can have with an animal in general and with a
companion pet in particular. His film deals with the wordless affection and
trust that animals can (and do) bring to relationships, qualities of which
humans are only vaguely aware. And usually when it's too late.

It's a family film but a superior one, alternately endearing and disturbing as
it shows scenes of family life, wherein a pet - first a little puppy, then a
hulking giant - is always there, usually on the periphery of the action but,
somehow, crucial to the action. His presence, casually taken for
granted, is felt only when he is gone. Suddenly, life ... has ... changed.
Sad."Marley & Me" earns its tears, largely because Frankel
has given his film a generous exposition that's alive with many acute
observations and details. The well-honed screenplay was written by ace
scenarist Scott Frank ("Get Shorty," "Minority Report" and
"Out of Sight") and indie filmmaker Don Roos ("The Opposite of
Sex"). And in Wilson and Aniston, Frankel has two vanity-free pros who
have chemistry to spare and play out their individual and shared foibles in a
natural (and good-natured) style that would have been appreciated by Hollywood
and critics of an earlier era. No pretensions here.

"The Iron Giant" / "The Thin Pick Line"

The first is Brad Bird's much-admired 1999 animation
in which Aniston provided the mom's voice, and the second is - what? I'm
not sure. It was directed by Joe Dietl andMichael Irpino in 1998, a send-up of sorts, and apparently went straight to
video. Huge cast. In addition to Aniston, there's Mike Myers, Janeane Garofalo,
David Schwimmer, Illeana Douglas and Jason Priestly. The contributors on IMDb
compare it to "Waiting for Guffman." Too much of a curiosity not to
be included in my little at-home festival.

I left out a few Aniston titles - "Picture Perfect," "Till There Was You," "Bruce Almighty" and "Along Came Polly" - largely because
her roles in them do fit into the facile profile of Aniston's film career
that's been offered up by movie pundits - the thankless "girlfriend"
role.

Right now, Aniston is due out in the aforementioned "The Switch,"
opening Friday (20 August) in which she continues to define her singular screen
persona - namely, a woman who's a looker and a good sport and who has a spikey
edge that she makes no effort to conceal. The film's narrative sounds
Aniston-made - calling on the resources of the actress who can be playful and
in charge. And Jennifer Aniston is very much in charge.

Note in Passing: I would have loved to see what Aniston would have done
with the role of Mariane Pearl in "The Mighty Heart," a vehicle that,
reportedly, she and Brad Pitt optioned together when they were still a married
couple - and which was originally developed with Aniston in mind.

Relating Reading: And, in a piece worth reading, The San
Francisco Chronicle's Mick
LaSalle defends Aniston. Bravo! And LaSalle
defines "Love Happens." And Carrie
Rickey,Glenn
Kenny and Tom
Shone all weigh in on Jen on their marvelous movie sites,
"Flickgrrl, "Some Came Running" and "Taking Barack to the
Movies," respectively.

79 comments:

Catherine
said...

It's easy to take people who do their craft so effortlessly for granted. She's a natural - no histrionics. As a comedienne, I always thoughts that Aniston went down easy. Thanks for printing selected list of her titles. I forogt that she's been in some good ones.

There seems to be a need for some lazy critics to choose a cinematic object of derision to whom they can make quick reference as a means of establishing their superiority. It's tiresome, but it says more in the end about those critics than their target. I appreciate you giving a fair reading to your film festival selections - it was a pleasure to read something thoughtful, rather than the literary equivalent of a snort of dismissive laughter.

Well said, Joe. And I agree that "Love Happens" should have never been sold as a romantic comedy. I was very suprised at the low reviews it received, but saw the movie and enjoyed it. As I posted on Rotten Tomatoes, I gave an 80% rating, mostly for Eckhart's performance. I recommended this movie while it was in the theaters.

When "LOve Happens" opened and did less business than expected, the press blamed Aniston again. She made one too many romcoms this year, was the main complaint. Too bad the studio didn't sell the film for what it was, but then perhaps it would have done even less business. Thanks for the tip. Now, I want to see it.

That scene you mention in "The Break Up" is GREAT. It contains some of the best acting in recent years. "The Break-Up" really got a raw deal because, like you say, it's an uncompromising film on a subject everyone can relate to.

Nicholas- Thanks! My blog always seems the same to me. I personally see no change in it (for better or worse). However, I have grown more comfortable with it and perhaps that shows and has affected my creativity.

"The Break Up" could have been just another guy-comedy goofball, but Aniston and Vince Vaughn brought layers to it. I admire Vaugh in this film for daring to be unlikable and unsympathetic. He could have played the character as just a jerk, and I bow to Aniston for her toughness.

Aniston will never be forgiven for having come out of TV. And exactly why do people look down on TV work so? Doing a show like "Friends" is essentially like putting on a stage play every week. That's the way it should be seen. Anyway, Aniston shouldn't be discounted. Starting with "Friends," she has always been a great comic actress.

To expand on what graham just said, like a good stage performer, Aniston always came across as a good team player. Sure,an ensemble show like "Friends" requires that, but even in her film work, there's was a lot of give and take. Anyway, she seems to have chemistry with every one of her co-stars - and as you correctly point out, she's always generous with them.

Erich78: I've no idea why "The Good Girl" has become a forgotten film. You're not the only one who has overlooked it. It was well-regarded at the time of its release, and so was Aniston's performance in it. I think "The Break-Up," "Friends with Money" and "Love Happens" are three other titles of which she can also really be especially proud.

Aniston seems to be someone used by some critics to work out their own personal issues. I'm not sure why someone gets picked for that uncomfortable role, but I'm happy to see you taking a more reasoned approach to a performer who's done a suprising amount of good work and with too little recognition.

I had planned to skip "Love Happens" because of the downbeat reviews. I was cautious. But I went in anyway and was really taken by it. No, it wasn't a romcom at all. Also, thanks for reminding me that one of my favorite movies of that year was "He's Just Not That Into You," got similarly negative reviews.

Great, great blog, Joe. Could not agree with you more about the special qualities of Jennifer Aniston.

I enjoyed the first three quarters of "Love Happens" very much, and thought it was one of the more affecting love stories I had seen in a long time. I can't forgive the last 20 minutes or so, which for me was one cliche after another (the achingly public confession, the slow clap, etc.)

It was so good up until that point that I wonder if the studio got cold feet and instigated some changes? But I thought Aniston and Echkart were both wonderful in it.

Kevin- I know exactly what you mean about those last few minutes of "Love Happens" and I think your theory of studio interference is spot-on. Still, I was able to forgive that flaw because it was so heartening to see a serious movie about a relationship between flawed people. No, not a romcom.

Good post. I checked out all the links you give and found this witty letter on the NY Times site in regard to the Dowd-Wasson dialogue. It says all there is to say:

"With a guy like Sam Wasson walking the earth, who needs romantic comedy? After reading this column, I feel like I walked into the middle of an unintentionally funny horror flick written and directed by Woody Allen.

"This self-proclaimed expert on cinematic love proudly admits that he is constantly asking himself and all his 'friends and lovers' why the genre is dead. Then, later in the column, he casually mentions he has a girlfriend, as he and Maureen Dowd are madly e-mailing each other back and forth over their mutual obsession.

I assume (I hope) this piece was meant to be a satire of the cultural bankruptcy of contemporary America. My favorite quote from Sam the Man: 'Every time I see Jennifer Aniston's or Jennifer Garner's face I wince.'

This whole column made me wince. I can only imagine how Sam Wasson's girlfriend will feel after reading it. Assuming, of course, that she even exists outside of his Holly Golightly-addled imagination."

Like Coffee Fiend, I also take a small pleasure in the fact that Jennifer Anniston continues to have better years, commercially (and sometimes also artistically), than Brangelina, Angie's Oscar win nothwithstanding.

Warren is right. Brad and Jolie might make more "important" movies, but they usually fizzle. No business and so-so-reviews. Somehow, the Academy was infatuated with them. Aniston, on the other than, gives very naturalistic performances (the kind, alas, that don't break hearts and win Oscars) that I personally found much more appealing.

Gwen: Pitt's "Benjamin Button" has a domestic gross of about $125 million - not great for a so-called "superstar," but nothing to sneeze at either. Bottom line: It did do business. Admittedly, Jolie's "Changeling" didn't do well but I received some good reviews. I personally didn't like it, mostly because of Jolie. I think Aniston is much more impressive in both "The Good Girl" and "The Break-Up," the latter especially.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that a comparison between Jennifer Aniston and Jennifer Garner was somehow put forth as credible based on..what? Their similar hair color? Or just their first names? And yet my expectations of so-called professional commentary always starts out so much higher! I have always appreciated Jennifer Aniston's ability, if not always her film choices, which have run a little hot and cold, as can be said of many of her peers and predecessors. I think she has a lovely, calm, effortless style, that embraces comedy and romance, and has maintained decorum, preferring to keep her body and her business to herself, and I think that probably rankles with a lot of media hounds. Perhaps it also limits her opportunities. That would be a shame.

Having never seen Friends, the first and only time I caught Aniston was in The Good Girl. Enjoyed the film, but was not especially captivated by anybody, including Aniston. I feel the same way about her as I did Meg Ryan, when she was America’s romantic comedy sweetheart. They both look boyish to me (or Ryan did before the surgical alterations turned her into Joan Rivers)

Did not realize she had made so many films. Based on your recommendations, Joe, I will give her another look and rent Management and Rock Star.

a agree, i'm a JA fan, epsecially when she's in off-kilter stuff like "The Good Girl" and "Management." I think she's an easy target but she seems to handle it all quite well. As for Bill O'Reilly, what can you ever say? I'd rather talk about Laura Schlesinger right now...

I am so sick of Aniston playing the perpetual ingenue. She's trying to be the girl from “Friends” and she's 40 years old. I know she's made a few attempts at extending her range - Derailed, for example. But she is what she is - a light comedienne, if you like that sort of thing. And I don't. I think she was good in “Marley & Me.” But I'm not a fan. She's probably a good friend to her buddies, has great hair, is holding up nicely, etc. But when I see her on screen, I only see the woman with the hair who makes forgettable movies. So I guess it's not just young males who put her down. Most of my female friends feel as i do about her. She should go away for a while. She's perfectly suited to the demands of TV situation comedies and there's no shame in that. If it's no broke, don't fix it. I do think she handled the Bill O'Reilly thing well. I loathe him and her pr staff did a good job writing her reply to him.

Great tribute! I think her response to Bill O’Reilly was absolutely perfect. Of course, I may be prejudiced as I think he his hate spewing idiot who makes up facts and uses sound bites to back up his misinformation! My sister just called on her way home from seeing The Switch to tell me how much she liked it and to say that it was really worth seeing. Keep up the good fight.

With all due respect, Joe. I disagree....http://susangranger.com/?p=5076. I am not young and I hope I am not snarky. Perhaps someday Ms. Aniston will concentrate more on her work than publicizing her diet, fashion and off-screen romances. Make no mistake about it - she courts all this publicity - it doesn't just 'happen' to her.

Susan! We agree to disagree on this. Bit it makes little difference if I agree or disagree, you wrote a professonal, balanced and tight analysis of the film. One can't ask for more than that from a critic.

Fair enough, Joe, and it's always obvious when there is a "piling on" effect from critics, whether it's with raves or knocks, but there's a more practical, if extremely tricky and often inexplicable side to this: a choice of scripts that WORK for you. Think of those who picked just the right things for THEM at the right time: Hepburn (both of them), Grant, Stewart, Streep, and Bullock. Then, there are those who seemed to alternate between films that yielded the results and those that didn't: Costner, Clooney, and--yes--Pitt. Aniston has not been as clever at matching her talents with her choices. This isn't a judgment about the quality of the movies themselves, but rather that odd moment of resonance between actor and role.

Good point, Patrick. However, the two Hepburns and Grant, unlike people like Clooney, Pitt and Aniston, worked under the studio system which trained, molded and looked out for them. The new breed of actors doesn't have that luxury. As for Streep, she's always been something of an anomaly, completely unto herself (but even she had something of a dry spell in the '90s, from which she has since rebounded sensationally). As for Bullock, frankly, I would put her on the same plane as Aniston, in that both are "win some, lose some" actresses. Bullock's Oscar this year (completely undeserved, in my opinion) will surely improve her chances at getting better roles in better films.

Dick- "One of the worst films ever. Ever!"? Really? Why do people always resort to that extreme, hackneyed phrase when they describe a film they don't like? Of course, you exacerbate matters by adding "Rob Reiner should have been thrown in jail for such trash." Fuzzy thinking, friend. It's just a movie. And I never implied it was a good one - only that it's a missed opportunity because the idea behind it is a good one.

Aniston was never going to act in "The Mighty Heart." Check you facts. Aniston is an average actress. She makes millions of dollars. If she wanted or thought she could play anything other than Rachel, she would. I don't feel sorry for her. She deserves all the negative articles. She makes McMovies.

Bruce! I think you should check your facts. Maybe you don't see Aniston playing Mariane Pearl,but that was the idea when she and Pitt optioned the material - which apparently Pitt owned and took with him when they parted. Angelina Jolie was very good in the film but the fact is, Aniston would have been more interesting, more adventurous casting. If anyone else out there is fairly certain that I am wrong and can document it, let me know. I'm operating strictly on my memory here.

Fair points, Joe, but I'll make this rejoinder to Grant and Hepburn (both in one of my top ten films, The Philadelphia Story): Hepburn's great comeback, in that film, was not only without studio help but also her way of forcing Hollywood to take her back, and Cary (as I'm sure he would have had me call him if we had actually met) so defied the studios and his--eventual-- fellow Academy members that it was more of his stubborn insistence on how his image should be maintained (like having the women flirt with him as he grew older, e.g., in that other Hepburn's great romantic thriller Charade--you know other examples) than any studio advice or guidance.

That's a great point, Patrick. Yes, stars were once protected by the studio system, fed roles, but many times, they were held back and had to rebel and strike out on their own. I guess that acting has always been a "survival of the fittest" situation and still very much is - only more so.

The estimable Daryl Chin weighs in on the on-going Jennifer Aniston lynch-mob mentality on his ever-fascinating site, Documents on Art & Cinema (http://d-a-c.blogspot.com/), and his this to say:

"I can't seem to shake it. Just watched 'The Ghosts of Girlfrends Past'; obviously, not a movie that i would watch in a theater, but i decided i should see it because it has Jennifer Garner, who (along with Jennifer Aniston) was an object of scorn in a recent column by Maureen Dowd. Jennifer Garner isn't bad, in fact, there are moments when she's very charming. In a way, i don't understand current critical standards (or the lack thereof). It's like the current critical animosity towards Jennifer Aniston: where is this coming from? But it's coming from the same mentality which Hollywood foists on everyone, in which there are winners and losers. So Angelina Jolie is a winner (especially because 'Salt' was a success) and so Jennifer Aniston must be the loser. And one of the problems with critics now is that so many critics want to be insiders, they want to know who's on top in the Hollywood hierarchy, they want to back the winner.

"It's kind of a hideous situation. And nobody wants to break the trend."

Regarding Aniston, I have always been a fan. I live in Northern California and, on Saturday, as I was driving to Burlingame for an appointment, I heard the reviewer Jan Wahl on the radio and all she did was TRASH TRASH TRASH poor Jennifer. I was stunned that she, of all people, was criticizing Aniston's abilities as an actress.

There's no doubt in my mind that Aniston has talent.

HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, I believe, liked THE SWITCH; or at least its critic liked the Aniston/Bateman teaming.

Jim- I knew Jan very casually when I was reviewing from Northern California. She was very kind and welcoming to me and was very social in general - in short, an "up" person. It's hard to imagine her being nasty in one of her reviews, but I take your word for it. Maybe she was having a bad day. Or maybe she's bought into the new anti-Aniston agenda that so many critics (mostly young and mostly male) have today. The bottom line is that, years from now, no one will know who Jan or I was, but people will remember Jennifer Aniston.

Joe, I was going to write something in support of Jennifer Aniston, but you said it so much better to last poster. Critics may come and go, and will be quickly forgotten, but people in movies live forever. If my memory serves me correctly, what everyone is saying about Aniston is the same things that people once said about Doris Day. She faced the same ridicule in her day. Now we realize what a treasure she was. Thanks for putting it just right.

People forget that Jennifer Aniston became a star, almost overnight, on "Friends." Arguably, when the show came on in '94, she was its most popular personality. She was 25. It ran for 10 years and her popularity remained. That is nothing to dismiss. Her critics can remain oblivious but she is a star. In the years since the show went off the air, she's experimented with roles. There are quite a few indies on her resume. The current hostility toward her says more about her critics than about this most likable actress.

"Management" was brilliant and one of her most underrated films. Critics analyzed it as though it was another romcom when in fact it was a highly artful treatment of the most basic of human relationships - that of parent/child. Any doubts? Just notice how the movie opens and closes, and look at each relationship in the movie. it couldn't be more obvious and yet the critics missed it.

a fan's notes by joe baltake devoted to movies neglected and mostly misunderstood

pageviews today ~ 1,535,456

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

about this site, a collection of movie-fed daydreams...

Life is simply one grand excuse to watch movies and then sit around and think about them. While my education was honed by reviewing films for Gannett, Tribune, McClatchy, The News Corporation and Knight-Ridder, my personality - or rather my taste - was shaped largely in my old neighborhood movie theater and on my parents' living room floor. Watching movies. And falling in love with the unacclaimed. Passionately.(the passionate moviegoer ® is a registered trademark)

quote unquote

"There is no better evidence of Joe's passion than his subject matter, defending and remembering the more obscure titles from cinematic history. No matter how much you think you might know about movies, odds are you will learn of new ones if you check out Joe's site."

"Joe ... devotes himself to those myriad neglected figures and movies seemingly left by the roadside in our societal rush toward cultural amnesia. Whether he is trying to find the source of Jack Lemmon's quicksilver appeal or understand Vincente Minnelli's valedictory films or express just why we miss Jack Carson, Joe is consistently thoughtful and knowledgeable without being ponderous."